CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
EDUCATION AND THE ARTS
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
TRANSPORTATION
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that
helps improve policy and decisionmaking through
research and analysis.
This electronic document was made available from
www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND
Corporation.
LAW AND BUSINESS
NATIONAL SECURITY
Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Reports & Bookstore
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated
in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND
intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting
of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND
electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required
from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents
for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see
RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.
RAND monographs present major research findings that address the
challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for
research quality and objectivity.
U.S. Global Defense
Posture, 1783–2011
Stacie L. Pettyjohn
Prepared for the United States Air Force
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
PROJECT AI R FORCE
The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States
Air Force under Contract FA7014-06-C-0001. Further information may
be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans,
Hq USAF.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Pettyjohn, Stacie L.
U.S. global defense posture, 1783/2011 / Stacie L. Pettyjohn.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8330-7696-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. United States—Defenses—History. 2. United States—Armed Forces—Foreign
countries. 3. Military bases, American—Planning. 4. United States—Military policy.
I. Title.
UA23.P49 2012
355'.033073—dc23
2012045707
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve
policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. R AND’s
publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients
and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2012 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as
long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for
commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a
non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under
copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please
visit the R AND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/
permissions.html).
Published 2012 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org
Summary
Background and Purpose
The current U.S. global defense posture—that is, the location and primary operational orientation of the nation’s military personnel and the
military facilities that its troops have access to—is under increasing
pressure from a number of sources, including budgetary constraints,
precision-guided weapons that reduce the survivability of forward
bases, and host-nation opposition to a U.S. military presence.
These debates over the shape of the U.S. overseas military presence are not without precedent. As policymakers today evaluate the
U.S. forward military presence, it is important that they understand
how and why the U.S. global posture has changed. This monograph
aims to describe the evolution of the U.S. global defense posture from
1783 to the present and to explain how the United States has grown
from a relatively weak and insular regional power that was primarily
concerned with territorial defense into the preeminent global power,
with an expansive system of overseas bases and forward-deployed
forces that enable it to conduct expeditionary operations around the
globe. Moreover, this historical overview has important implications
for current policy and future efforts to develop a U.S. military strategy, in particular, the scope, size, and type of military presence overseas. As new and unpredictable threats emerge, alliance relationships
are revised, and resources decline, past efforts at dealing with similar
problems may yield important lessons for future decisions.
xi
xii
U.S. Global Defense Posture, 1783–2011
Summary of Findings
Many factors differentiate the U.S. global postures of the past. Arguably the two most important of these factors are the extent of the U.S.
overseas military presence and the primary operational orientation of
U.S. troops located both at home and abroad. The first refers to the
location, type, and number of U.S. forces temporarily or permanently
deployed abroad and the military facilities outside the continental
United States that U.S. troops have access to. The second indicates
whether U.S. forces intend to fight where they are based or to redeploy and conduct operations in other theaters. Obviously, this typology greatly simplifies reality. Nevertheless, it identifies fundamental
distinctions between past defense postures and creates ideal types that
help to illustrate changes in the U.S. global defense posture.
Since independence, senior officials have developed and at least
partially implemented seven distinct and identifiable U.S. global postures: continental defense (1783–1815), continental defense and commercialism (1815–1898), oceanic posture and surge deployments
(1906–1938), hemispheric defense (1938–1941), perimeter defense in
depth (1943–1949), consolidated defense in depth (1950–1989), and
expeditionary defense in depth (1990–present). (See Figure S.1.)
While there have been seven different global postures, three critical breakpoints stand out because they have had a dramatic and enduring influence on the scope and scale of the U.S. overseas military presence. First, the establishment of station squadrons led to the expansion
of continental defense in favor of a hybrid continental and commercial
posture. Taking this first step to protect U.S. overseas trade from predatory actors broke American officials out of the continental mindset
and set the precedent that the U.S. military needed to be involved in
global affairs to further the nation’s interests.
Second, as a consequence of its victory in the Spanish-American
War of 1898, the United States acquired a number of territories in the
Far East and the Caribbean. Not only did these overseas possessions
enable U.S. forces to operate in other regions, they also provided a new
justification for deploying military forces abroad because the United
States was compelled to defend its expanding strategic frontier. In fact,
Summary
xiii
Figure S.1
Ideal Type Defense Postures, 1783–Present
Power
projection
Operational orientation
of U.S. forces
Perimeter
defense in deptha
1943–1949
Expeditionary
defense in depth
1990–present
Oceanic posture
1906–1938
Continental and
commercial posture
1815–1898
Continental
defense
1783–1815
Hemispheric
defense
1938–1941
Concentrated
defense in depthb
1950–1989
Garrison
CONUS
Worldwide
Extent of the U.S. overseas military presence
a Planned strategy that was never fully implemented.
b Focused on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and North Korea.
RAND MG1244-S.1
these developments first established the nation as an Asia-Pacific power,
a role it still prioritizes today.
Third, World War II prompted an enduring shift in the preferred
strategy of U.S. officials to one of defense in depth. A consensus formed
that the United States needed to maintain a robust forward military
presence to ensure the security of the nation. This decision irrevocably
shaped U.S. military strategy from that point forward, even though
the nature of the U.S. overseas military presence—which evolved from
perimeter defense in depth to consolidated defense in depth to expeditionary defense in depth—has changed. The preceding analysis yields
a number of recommendations.
xiv
U.S. Global Defense Posture, 1783–2011
Recommendations
The Importance of Strategic Planning
Historically, major changes to the U.S. global defense posture have
only been successfully implemented in the wake of an exogenous shock.
Nevertheless, planning efforts were critical because they enabled policymakers to identify the type of presence that they needed and allowed
them to act more rapidly to implement earlier plans when the circumstances became favorable.
Think Globally
With the United States once again focused on projecting power
throughout the world, it is important that U.S. planners have a truly
global perspective. In the 1940s, postwar planning for a U.S. system
of overseas bases was not only serious and sustained but also global in
scope. In part because the Joint Chiefs of Staff examined a world map
that was not artificially divided into areas of responsibility, they identified critical locations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and along the
Mediterranean that would fall along the seams of today’s combatant
command areas of responsibility. One impediment to a truly global
perspective, however, is the influence of the combatant commands on
the planning process. Despite their importance, the Pentagon needs to
ensure that its global defense posture is developed from a top-down,
not a bottom-up, perspective, one that takes into account the ways
a military presence in one region could facilitate operations in other
regions. By tailoring an overseas presence to a single atomized area
of responsibility, planners may overlook potential synergies between
regions and risk creating an inefficient global posture that is optimized
only for intraregional operations.
Connect Continental U.S. and Outside the Continental U.S. Basing
Efforts
A global defense posture necessarily includes the location of forces and
facilities at home and abroad because the two are intrinsically linked.
When the Pentagon reviews and modifies the U.S. overseas military
presence, it often makes decisions that result in forces either returning
Summary
xv
to the continental United States (CONUS) or leaving it, both of which
have implications for the base realignment and closure process. Despite
this, the planning processes for CONUS and outside CONUS basing
generally proceed separately. The 2004 Global Defense Posture Review
coordinated its initiatives with the base realignment and closure process that was concurrently under way, which ensured that the two
reviews’ recommendations were complementary (or at least not at crosspurposes) and facilitated the implementation of both undertakings.
Develop a Lighter, More Agile Footprint Overseas
The mounting pressure on the existing U.S. forward military presence
is likely to require a greater emphasis on forward operating sites and
cooperative security locations situated on the perimeters of the major
continents. Forward operating sites or cooperative security locations
are less expensive to operate and maintain than main operating bases,
are less likely to cause friction with the local population, and are more
likely to be accepted by the host nation, thereby improving the ability
of the United States to make inroads in critical regions where it currently has little to no presence. Ultimately, the United States should
adopt a posture that is more versatile and less costly, vulnerable, and
conspicuous.
An overseas military presence with a lighter footprint and that
is situated on the periphery would be a significant departure from
the global posture that the United States has had in place for more
than 60 years. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the consolidated
defense in depth posture was unusual in two important respects: The
United States established large main operating bases with a permanent
U.S. military presence (which are a historical anomaly for any nation,
including the United States), and many of these facilities were located
inland on the European and Asian continents.
Opportunistically Expand the U.S. Presence Abroad
Across history, the most common reason for another nation permitting
the United States to establish a military presence on its territory is a
shared perception of threat. Absent a serious danger to their security,
nations are unlikely to voluntarily circumscribe their sovereignty by
xvi
U.S. Global Defense Posture, 1783–2011
temporarily providing U.S. forces access to military facilities on their
territories or by allowing the United States to permanently station its
forces within their borders. If U.S. policymakers continue to regard
an overseas military presence as essential, the Department of Defense
would benefit by seizing on opportune moments when shared perception of threat is rising to expand its military presence in key regions
and thereby enhance its ability to patrol the global commons, reassure
allies under duress, and deter prospective adversaries from attempting
to revise the status quo by threat or use of force.